Should teacher be fired

[Mickey's Minion]

no, I do not think a teacher should be fired just on the basis of whether her class is passing or failing. I don't think teachers should be judged by any inflexible criteria. I think teachers should be judged individually. In some classes that are failing it is the teoacher's fault and in others, economic and other factor play a role.

I strongly feel that teachers should be evaluated on merit, looking at all aspects of their teaching success based on the dynamics of their classroom.

I have seen too many teachers (most teachers are excellent) decide to slack off because they are protected by tenure and their seniority.

In all industries that have yearly reviews, a person is motivated to do their best when they have to prove themselves every year.

I would love to see the end of tenure and levels due to seniority and education. Not only would the bad teachers be weeded out, but our excellent teachers would have an opportunity to be rewarded commensurate with their outstanding teaching abilities.

 

[Ember]

Sounds like a great way to drive up grade inflation. If teachers were going to be fired for students failing, I think you'd see a dramatic increase in the number of students who passed.

Why does no one see that we aren't helping our children when we do this. We hand hold them through school, ensuring they never fail or have any problems, and then we wonder why they have problems as adults. Not everyone can make the team (so lets make sure everyone does), not everyone can gets A's (of course, we don't give real grades anymore), and not everyone is the same. In the words of the Incredibles, "When everyone is special, no one is."

 

[swald91]

I don't think the teacher should be fired, but I do think they should be made to take tests every few years-some get into their position & are able to hold it. My daughter is now in 8th grade & her English teacher hands out worksheets & then plays on Facebook during class-I've heard this not only from her but other students in different classes...she attended a catholic school until 7th grade-she has a 97 average & in advanced classes but hasn't been assigned any books to read all year. Now my son is in 4th & has a book each month along w/ book reports....the teachers at our local catholic school get paid so little & I believe their standard of teaching is far better than the local high schools here. I think children also learn at different rates than others-very difficult to teach and make sure all the students are not only getting it but do well on tests....

 

[emma'smom]

I think the biggest issue with this idea (firing teachers whose students don't pass the test and giving "merit" pay to those who do) are looking at the issue of success too narrowly. This isn't to say that there isn't a role for standardized testing. However, this role should be a limited part of a bigger picture of student success.

With failing/passing scores as the measure of success (and my job on the line based on those numbers), you can be sure I'll make sure my students pass those tests--but I can't promise that they will have really learned a whole lot.

I have seen far to many schools (and teachers) narrow the focus of their curriculum and teaching style to address only concepts that "are going to be tested" and only in a format that will achieve the highest test scores. Yet, successful passage of standardized testing does not necessarily equate with well-grounded students who are able to apply this knowledge in thoughtful and practical ways. We are assessing whether they can regurgitate content-- not whether they really understand it and use it to influence their understanding of the world.

The way that most standardized tests in the U.S. currently assess student really doesn't get at a student's development of 21st century skills (problem solving, information technologies, cultural appreciation, ability to work in groups, shifting leadership models, etc). However, these are the kinds of skills that 21st century students will need to achieve in their professional lives.

My two cents.....

 

[okeydokey]

Of course not, its not the teachers fault their students are failing, its the parent's.

More like the student's.

 

[punkin]

I think the biggest issue with this idea (firing teachers whose students don't pass the test and giving "merit" pay to those who do) are looking at the issue of success too narrowly. This isn't to say that there isn't a role for standardized testing. However, this role should be a limited part of a bigger picture of student success.

With failing/passing scores as the measure of success (and my job on the line based on those numbers), you can be sure I'll make sure my students pass those tests--but I can't promise that they will have really learned a whole lot.

I have seen far to many schools (and teachers) narrow the focus of their curriculum and teaching style to address only concepts that "are going to be tested" and only in a format that will achieve the highest test scores. Yet, successful passage of standardized testing does not necessarily equate with well-grounded students who are able to apply this knowledge in thoughtful and practical ways. We are assessing whether they can regurgitate content-- not whether they really understand it and use it to influence their understanding of the world.

The way that most standardized tests in the U.S. currently assess student really doesn't get at a student's development of 21st century skills (problem solving, information technologies, cultural appreciation, ability to work in groups, shifting leadership models, etc). However, these are the kinds of skills that 21st century students will need to achieve in their professional lives.

My two cents.....

This!
I do not like where education is headed.

 

[castleview]

It's rarely a black and white issue. I've seen some kids who will never pass because they do nothing. If the teacher manages to keep that kid quiet and from distracting the rest of the class, than the teacher has done his job.

 

[Goldenbear6]

This was on Fox Friends, about teacher being fired if there students aren't passing.

What do you all think? I'm against this there are so many reason why kids fail. It hardly fair to blame the teacher.

Sometimes, the kids are just stupid......

 

[Pigeon]

Sometimes, the kids are just stupid......

I would add "or lazy" except you can't call them that. The acceptable euphemism is "work inhibited."

 

[Hoodie]

It depends. If the entire class is failing, and the teacher has made no effort to correct that (extra office hours, "help session") then yes, s/he should be fired. I had a couple of really tough teachers in high school who made you work hard to pass, and if you were struggling you had to approach them for help, but they were always willing to give it. I also had a couple who would do nothing more than the minimum of what their contract stated. If office hours were not specified as required, they wouldn't do them. IMO, those are the ones who should be fired.

Of course, I don't think teachers should be unionized anyway. I don't believe in tenure and think that there should be stricter performance standards. I think about half the teachers in my high school would have been fired (and should have been) if they actually had to be evaulated on performance.

 

[brockash]

This was on Fox Friends, about teacher being fired if there students aren't passing.

What do you all think? I'm against this there are so many reason why kids fail. It hardly fair to blame the teacher.

Heck no, there are so many things wrong with that, not to mention all the potential issues that would come up because of such a stupid stupid policy. A teacher should be "graded" on their effort, not the effort, or lack thereof, of the student/parents. I absolutely teachers should have very high standards, as to how much effort they put into to each student, but ultimately a students grade should really be out of the control of soley the teacher.

 

[brockash]

More like the student's.

Totally depends on the grade of the student and really even for high school kids, if their parents stay on top of them enough and instilled good study skills and work ethics in them as young children, it shouldn't be too hard for them to pass with good grades in high school. Honestly, it starts from a very young age. My ds is in 2nd grade, and he's been given "homework" and spelling ect. to study since 1st grade, and I can't tell you how many parents do absolutely nothing with it. They don't have their 1st graders practice any of the spelling words and they really do just throw out homework that came home, and don't read with/to their kids ect. I'm a pretty firm believer, that most of the time it's the parents, not the kids, even at a high school level.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I think that if there is an ongoing issue with kids failing in a particular teacher's class then someonthing needs to be done. In that case the fault probably lies with the teacher and not the kids or parents. If the teacher cannot do his or her job then yes, they should be fired.

Agreed...

 

[LisaR]

I would add "or lazy" except you can't call them that. The acceptable euphemism is "work inhibited."

And they are work inhibited likely because of an undiagnosed learning disability. Little Johnny could never simply be lazy or unmotivated nowadays. It has to be a LD. In my day (I sound so old) my parents would smack us upside the head and tell us to get the lead out.

 

[manning]

I need more information on the specific case you're talking about. However...IF the majority of a teacher's class is failing and IF more than one or two years of their classes have failed, or IF that class has done well with previous years testing and failed miserably under her teaching, then yes, I think the teacher should be fired.

Other performance reviews and student levels at the beginning of the year should be taken into consideration, but if a teacher is continually failing to teach effectively, then they should be fired. In our fairly affluent suburban school district with high parental involvement their are a few teachers that should not be teaching. The majority of their classes are struggling and if their students pass standardized test it will be because the parents paid for expensive tutoring and it will be in spite of the teacher's ability not because of it.

I do know of one case (I think it's in Massachusetts) where the school has continually been listed as a failing school. The administration has been given a choice of making major changes or closing the school. They went ot the teachers with a proposal that they add more time to the school day and have tutoring sessions during free periods and lunch hours (they would still get at least the minimal lunch and breaks the law requires). The union and the teachers refused to work any additional time. The administration plans on firing all of them. In this case, they deserve to be fired.

Well, that union served the children well.

 

[luvsJack]

There are many factors that would need to be considered before someone is fired and I would think that most school districts would consider everything to protect themselves from a lawsuit.

But, contrary to what some of you are saying; it is the teacher's job to teach the students. It is the teacher's job to offer as many different ways as possible for the students to get the information needed to complete the work and to gain the knowledge to pass their course. And it is the parents job to do everything possible to make sure the student take advantage of the oportunities the teachers gives the student. But if a teacher is incapable of teaching the material, I hardly think the parents nor the students should be blamed.

There are bad teachers and schools should have the right to get rid of bad teachers. And if an entire class or a large percentage is failing that would be a red flag for that teacher and observation should be made. If it has continued year after year, then yes at some point the teacher should be let go. It would be sad to see a good teacher penalized because of any such policy, but I would also hate to see good students penalized because of not having such a policy.

And before it is said, yes parents have a responsiblity in their child's education and yes the students have a responsiblity in their own education; but that does not alleviate the teacher's responsiblity of doing his/her job.

 

[luvmy3]

More like the student's.

It starts with the parents, when the kids are young. If there was no emphasis on school work, studying, etc from the very beginning of the students academic career, then it will carry into every year. Sure a HS student is old enough to take responsibility, but if the parent never cared, why would the student suddenly decide its important

I do agree that sometimes it may be the teacher, however it is rare that it is solely the teacher's fault. I can't say the same when it comes to parents.

 

[luvsJack]

It starts with the parents, when the kids are young. If there was no emphasis on school work, studying, etc from the very beginning of the students academic career, then it will carry into every year. Sure a HS student is old enough to take responsibility, but if the parent never cared, why would the student suddenly decide its important

I do agree that sometimes it may be the teacher, however it is rare that it is solely the teacher's fault. I can't say the same when it comes to parents.

I wouldn't say it is exactly "rare". Teachers do burn out and get tired, it gets close of retirement and some (not all) stop caring, things happen.

You are right that learning begins at a very young age and parents should make it a priority from the beginning; but if a teacher has half a class or more failing chances are that it is not the fault of ALL the parents nor is it the fault of ALL the students. There is only going to be so many common factors in a classroom of kids and the teacher is one of those common factors.

 

[Amy8888]

This question is going to come up more and more thanks to No Child Left Behind. The way that legislation is structured, pretty soon it will be inevitable that previously passing schools will be called failing (the standards get higher and higher each year until 2014, when 100% of students are supposed to be proficient in the areas they test in.) Failing schools will be closed, and money that would have gone to teaching and learning issues (such as teachers' salaries) will then go to transportation costs to bus the students to "passing" schools. So I think firing a "failing" teacher is a way that some schools are going to fight to prevent becoming a "failing" school.

Needless to say, I was glad to hear of Obama's plan to revamp NCLB.

 

[KramBerries]

I wouldn't mind a rule that followed along these lines. A teacher's performance is assessed by how his/her students perform on standardized tests relative to their past performance and that of their peers. In other words, if a group of students performed significantly worse than they did in the prior year while their peers in other classes didn't show a similar decline, I'd blame the teacher.

Even then, I wouldn't just fire him/her. I would work with them on a performance plan and assess what could be done to remedy the situation. If it didn't improve, then I would fire the teacher.

Teachers are like other employees in the sense that there are those that perform well and those that do not. The difference is that teachers very, very rarely get fired for poor performance but it happens to regular employees fairly frequently. I think that the teaching profession would be better off if, instead of blocking performance standards, they worked to create an effective set. Then good teachers could make more money and bad teachers could find a career that they weren't bad at.